Strauss knows a guy who took a runner in that situation in a game he didn't play in, and his ex-teammate took a runner in that situation before they were even teammates, and he should be bound by that precedent.

Still undecided, tbh, think Strauss probably applied the letter of the law rather than necessarily the spirit of the game; however, I am sure that it's the kind of call that I'd prefer to be in the remit of the umps and therefore have clear guidelines and/or legislation laid down.

"The PFA does not represent players when they have broken the law and been convicted on non-football matters."- Gordon Taylor in 2009 following Marlon King's release after a prison sentence for sexual assault & ABH

From what I read, the umps said they were inclined to refuse Smith the runner, but were happy to leave it up to Strauss. That's that's accurate, that's pretty ****ty from the umpires. It's their job to uphold the rules, not the opposition captain, whose got a massive conflict of interest. If I was a captain, and the umpires came to me in a big match and say "Fat Gray wants a runner, and by the rules we aren't sure he should be allowed one, but if you're willing to let the rules slide on this one, we'll let him do it", I'd be saying "no" as well.

Originally Posted by Irfan

We may not like you, your filthy rich coffers or your ratbag scum of supporters but by god do we respect you as a football team

Pity it doesn't apply when Flintoff comes into the match injured and then spends time off the field between spells getting treated though. I wouldn't have been upset if Ponting had suggested some of the English bowlers either stay on the field or stay in the pavilion.

"What is this what is this who is this guy shouting what is this going on in here?" - CP. (re: psxpro)

R.I.P Craigos, you were a champion bloke. One of the best

R.I.P Fardin 'Bob' Qayyumi

Member of the Church of the Holy Glenn McGrath

"How about you do something contstructive in this forum for once and not fill the forum with ****. You offer nothing." - theegyptian.

From what I read, the umps said they were inclined to refuse Smith the runner, but were happy to leave it up to Strauss. That's that's accurate, that's pretty ****ty from the umpires. It's their job to uphold the rules, not the opposition captain, whose got a massive conflict of interest. If I was a captain, and the umpires came to me in a big match and say "Fat Gray wants a runner, and by the rules we aren't sure he should be allowed one, but if you're willing to let the rules slide on this one, we'll let him do it", I'd be saying "no" as well.

Actually, it was Strauss himself who said that. We're yet to hear from the umpires themselves what they said on the matter....

There was meant to be an "if" as in "if that's accurate" in there. Looks like I typed "that that's accurate" instead. I blame global warming for my lapse.

Yeah, Strauss might have been making that up, although you'd think that would be a risky thing to do given there's nothing stopping the umpires coming out and contradicting you if you simply make up things they've supposedly said. Given that, I guess there was some kind of conversation pretty close to what Strauss is describing. It's not like ICC umpires making stuff up on the fly and getting it wrong is unknown.